FTC Team Building Efforts

This year I decided to dedicate a considerable amount of time to team building efforts. We start team building at our second meeting and ran through today.

Build a Burger

In this team building exercise, each student has part of a hamburger (printed on paper) taped to their back. They do not know what they have on their back. Some students have a top bun, some a bottom bun, some a beef patty, some are lettuce, some are tomato, one lone students is pickles, and some other are cheese. The purpose of the exercise is to line-up so that you are in order from top to bottom to build a hamburger.

The desired outcome of the exercise is that a leader emerges from the group to take charge of the situation.

Engineering Notebook ConundrumĀ 

In this team building exercise, the students are introduced to a Google Doc which consists of a cover sheet for the team engineering notebook and a second blank page. The doc has been shared with all students they are all instructed to login, go to the second page, and enter their names. All students have editing rights. A completely chaotic environment emerges as students are typing over others and someone will accidentally or purposely delete some or all of the document.

The desired outcome of the exercise is similar to Build a Burger. It forces a leader to emerge from the group to take control of the situation.

All Aboard!

All Aboard - FTC 12645In this team building exercise, students have been stranded across a chain of small islands in the middle of the ocean.

As luck would have it, on the first island, which only has 1 students on it, there is a lifeboat. The lifeboat is two wooden pallets stacked on a center pivot elevated about 3 inches off the floor.

The lifeboat is considered “good” if all corners and sides are off the floor. The first students will be “picked-up” one-by-one on the lifeboat. Each time a student gets on, they must work to balance the lifeboat.

The desired outcome of this exercise is to foster open lines of communication and respect of ideas, regardless of whose idea it is.

Paper Tables

Paper TablesIn this team building exercise, students have to build a table that can, at a minimum, sustain the weight of 10 50-page engineering notebooks. For a challenge, the table should be able to hold the weight of a student.

The constraints of this project require that the base of the table be elevated a minimum of 4 inches from the ground and that the table be constructed of only paper and a limited amount of tape and hot glue. The time constraint is that the table must be built and tested within a single 90-minute class period.

The desired outcomes of this project are (1) foster open lines of communication and respect of ideas, regardless of whose idea it is and (2) solve an engineering problem given limited resources, including the resource of time.

Island Jumping

Island Jumping

In this team building exercise, students start at one location on “dry land” and must “hop” from island to island to reach the “promised land” on the other side.

The islands are made of 5 different pallets spaced at irregular intervals. Some are only 6 feet apart while others are 20 feet apart. Students are not allowed to touch the “water”, which is the floor tiles. If anyone does, the ENTIRE team has to go back to the start.

To help, the team has been given two sheets of poster board, which they can use any way they choose.

The desired outcome of this project is that team members ask questions about “gaps” in the rules. In this case, the poster board can be used to keep the feet of the students out of the “water”. To cover longer distance, the poster board can be torn.

This directly relates to a question that came up in the Velocity Vortex game in the 2016/2017 season. In the end game, teams received points if the cap ball (a large yoga ball) was off the floor. A team asked if you could just push the ball up one of the corner ramps. The national rules committee decided that this was “off the floor” and therefore was eligible for points. Had nobody asked, nobody would have gotten the points.

Split Robotics Teams by Day or Seniority?

FIRST Tech ChallengeFor the past two days, I have been asking both groups of robotics students how they want to be split up.

Currently, I have one stacked robotics class that meets during 3rd period on A-Days with 24 students enrolled in it and I have a second stacked robotics class that meets during 3rd period on B-Days with 25 students enrolled in it.

Ferris High School has two FTC teams (FTC 11242 and FTC 12645). At discussion is whether to have one team be assigned to A-Days and the other team be assigned to B-Days or to have half of the students on each day be assigned to one team and the other half assigned to the other team.

I see advantages and disadvantages to both. If both teams are split half-and-half, it will force them to completely document their process, which was a major problem last year. However, having the entire team together will help build cohesion within the team, which was another problem we had last year.

I have ultimately put it to a vote to the two groups and was surprised with the results.

A-Day Voting
A-Day Voting
B-Day Voting
B-Day Voting

I was genuinely surprised. The A-Day group had 54% apathy for the vote and did not care on the outcome. 29% wanted it split half-and-half. 17% wanted it split between days.

In contrast, the B-Day group had 0% apathy. Everyone voted! 88% wanted to be split between days and 12% wanted it split half-and-half.

So, the decision is to split between the days!

FTC 11242 will be housed on A-Days.

FTC 12645 will be housed on B-Days.

Roster First Glance & Gender Inequality

I now have my first glance at my rosters today in Skyward.

Here is how it looks right now:

  • 1st Period – Principles of Applied Engineering
    • 16 TOTAL (13 Males / 3 Females)
  • 5th Period – Principles of Applied Engineering
    • 16 TOTAL (16 Males / 0 Females)
  • 2A – Computer Science 1
    • 15 TOTAL (13 Males / 2 Females)
  • 4A – Computer Science 1
    • 12 TOTAL (10 Males / 2 Females)
  • 2B – Computer Science 2
    • 8 TOTAL (8 Males / 0 Females)
  • 3A – Robotics 1
    • 19 TOTAL (13 Males / 6 Females)
  • 3B – Robotics 1
    • 20 TOTAL (17 Males / 3 Females)
  • 3A – Robotics 2
    • 7 TOTAL (6 Males / 1 Female)
  • 3B – Robotics 2
    • 5 TOTAL (4 Males / 1 Female)

Converting these to percentages, this means that 9.28% of my Principles of Applied Engineering, 14.81% of my Computer Science 1, 23.08% of my Robotics 1, and 16.67% of my Robotics 2 classes are female.

A study from Jensen and Nutt shows 74% of females have interest in engineering technology ahead of entry to junior high. At conclusion of high school that interested drops to 2%.

Considering setting my 2017/2018 professional goal to be to develop a program that encourages more females into STEM.

According to US Dept of Ed 2015 study, 10.4% of males earned an engineering STEM credit compared to 2% of females.

Proposing 3 All-Girls STEM Camps for 2018:

  • Camp 1 – Completed 4th / 5th Grade
  • Camp 2 – Completed 6th Grade
  • Camp 3 – Completed 7th / 8th Grade

The major groups to support would be camps 1 and 2.